Counselling Australia, Journal of Australian Counselling Association,
Volume 9 (NoÂ 3) Spring 2009, pps 60-67.
At this beginning of the third millennium where Homo sapiens has walked on the moon we have no validated understanding of what makes people straight or gay. These three papers seek to rectify this absence. Paper 1 reviews the research literature. It shows that this research is confused and stymied. Paper 2 describes my doctoral research resolving this long-standing why gay or straight question. Paper 3 explains this long-standing confusion giving conclusions and implications. This trilogy aims to clarify two issues for counsellors and psychotherapists: (a) the origin and nature of sexual preference and (b) order, and disorder, and its implication of a universal precept underpinning rule of law.
Classification is assumed in how we see things. For instance customary language defines our human body by physique, physically male or female. This societal supposition is reifying (see endnote A) and, therefore, confusing. Historically biological science was confused before biologists named species using a two-in-one system of binomial nomenclature. For instance the combined Latin terms for man and wise classifying people as Homo sapiens.
Linnaeus (1707-1778) devised binomial nomenclature naming species by genus (Homo) and division (sapiens). There were other species of mankind now extinct (eg, Homo erectus). Gender derives from Latinâ€™s genus meaning birth, stock or race.
Binomial nomenclature names a group’s integer or holistic-name first. Homo is differentiated into divisions such as H. sapiens and H. erectus recognising the prior whole or integer. This recognises first their relationship of sameness (positive identity) before their relationship of difference (negative identity). Thus integer Homo is divisible into related different parts sapiens and erectus by differentiation. Whole is first before part; higher-order integrating lower-order. Dividing by segregation is different from differentiation.
Linnaean classification uses ideas of General Systems Theory codified later in 1968 by von Bertalanffy. Telephone directory names have Linnaean order (eg, Citizen John). However our familiar naming (eg, John Citizen) is contrary; reversed with specifier John prior to surname Citizen. With practice these classifications are not confusing. Their grammars including rules of order are not confounded. Once understood they are not confused. People readily distinguish Linnaean and familiar plant names (eg, Rosa canina and dog rose). These two systems are generally differentiated, their grammars not confounded. Sex and gender are generally undifferentiated.
Sex and gender research should explain sexuality. Unfortunately they are confused because they are confounded in general and scientific usage. They get used as though synonyms: like mistaking the (yellow) moon for (yellow) cheese. Sex and gender share common classificatory terms, example male (-sex) and male (-gender). These males are not identical.
Reification of male gender to mean male sex confuses the research literature. Customary use of this physic paradigm (knowledge of nature) in Western culture (eg, male and female physique) masquerades this reifying paradigm. This reification is confounding; it causes profound confusion generating ignorance around sexual preference. John Carroll (2004) in The Wreck of Western Civilisation: Humanism Revisited gives examples and names this mischief. He does not address havoc to human identity: this human wreckage (disorder) is addressed here.
Confounding: Profound Confusion in the Scientific Literature
Homosexual and heterosexual classify gay men and (lesbian) women together separated from straight men and women: gay or straight as though opposite categories of classification. That binary (ie, 0,1) either-or system was popular prior to the homosexual-heterosexual continuum (ie, 0-1) developed by Kinsey et al (1948). Constructed without higher-order integer these analytic classifications are dual, creating segregations like estranged religious and scientific realities. Person, singular and plural; first-, second- and third-person is inclusive of psychological, biological, social and spiritual elements.
Those classifications do not group gay men and straight women together though they have the same sexual preference for men. Instead gay men & women are grouped though their sexual preferences are contrary and their physiques are contrary. Segregating, those unnatural homosexual-heterosexual classifications pre-empt understanding of sexual preference. Segregation creates duality; human estrangement includes subjective disorder of self and objective disorder with other: respectively the mentally disordered and disorderly criminal.
Segregations (eg, sexism, racism) are socially constructed. Lacking integer unity they instead create incoherence, confusion; disorder. Differential Linnaean classification was a paradigm shift in biology as was the periodic table in chemistry. A paradigm shift is required in Western scientific philosophy. Especially in psychology which remains pre-paradigmatic. A unified classification of person by sex & gender creates understanding of sexual preference (see Figure 1). Person is integer for much counselling and psychotherapy.
Gender and sex both refer to male; and similarly female. Gender and sex seem like synonyms. A similar error would confuse Latin homo meaning mankind (eg, Homo sapiens) with Greek homo meaning same (eg, homosexual). Male-gender and male-sex may seem identical because by custom we make that wrong presumption. However these classify different elements of human personality: what is psychically-male [male psyche in person(see endnote B)Â ] and sociologically-male (person who is bio-socially male).
This means that a personâ€™s subjective (male or female) gender might be independent of how that person is genetically segregated and sexualised with male or female physique. Conventionally we presume a man being biologically male is therefore also gender male. This habit pre-empts the classification shown in Figure 1.
Natural philosopher Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) transformed physical science culminating in classical mechanics. Readers might be familiar with relativity, quantum mechanics and unified field theory. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was thwarted â”€ physics is not unified â”€ the macro- and micro-levels of matter, like sex and gender, seem incompatible.
Psychologists, counsellors and psychotherapists are today much influenced by human nature defined as though physical (eg, conventional nature-nurture debate). Is the primary nature of H. sapiens immaterial? Does male or female gender cause and differentially explain sexual preference? Is sexual preference erotic; internal rather than external in origin? Does sexuality have its origin in knowing prior to knowledge?
This research usually assumes physique as integer. That reification creates wrong order (Franklin, 2008). Confusion in the research literature is now further clarified.
1. Clarification of Scientific Terms
Deaux (1985) noted confusion of terms in her Sex and Gender review. Moreover identity is generally a philosophical rather than scientific question: metaphysic rather than physic. I observed confounding of external and internal frames of reference in that research literature (Franklin, 1988). Clarifying this confounding that confuses the living social and psychological identities of men and women, gay and straight, was prerequisite to my research.
Sexual anatomy is generally determined by sex-chromosomes, females have XX and males XY chromosomes. This segregated pattern generally determines sexualised anatomy in men and women.
Sexual identity can mean anatomical identity (eg, male), identity (eg, man) and identification (eg, masculinity). Sexual preference is generally included in sexual identity (Shively and DeCecco, 1977) in which case it has (mistakenly) an external frame of reference into sexual biology and bio-socialisation.
Boys and girls mostly identify with their genetically and socially constructed sexual identities: homosexuals and heterosexuals identify, transgender-persons (once called transsexuals) do not. Most people believe the pre-emptive and reverse-logic that male-bodied means gender-male person.
Some future world may recognise psychosocial identity formation more fully. Boys becoming men will develop male sexuality via socialisation that develops them personally instead of segregating masculinity: similarly for females. Bio-socialisation is instead a socially constructed and segregating conditioning-process making sexuality biologically based on childhood physique and culturally inherited values in male or female roles. A boy trying to function in such a dysfunctional system of received wisdom will glean from that divisive teaching that his socially constructed masculinity is validated by that dysfunctional system. Without remorse or reflectivity he can reflexively delude himself with complete faith that maniacally enacting his socially constructed sex-role of bully is instead social capability of an alpha-male demonstrating leadership.
Sexual identification is colloquially called masculinity (male social sex-role) and femininity (female social sex-role). This is not equivalent with identity formation including personalityâ€™s psychical origin. It is a poor and manic-depressive guide to becoming men and women. The endgame of this reflexive-failure of identity formation is disorder (Franklin, 1988).
A. Classifying men and women by their male or female sexual anatomy (ie, sexual identity) is generally unambiguous. In sex research this biologically determined identity is named male or female sex-role. It does not cause sexual preference (Franklin, 1988). However some researchers believe that it will be shown to have bio-genetic origins (eg, Stein, 1999).
B. A personâ€™s psychological identification (eg, boy, man) with their (male) sexual anatomy is generally unambiguous and is also called sexual identity. In sex research this identification with own biological anatomy is named (male or female) social sex-role. Gay and straight men are equally masculine whereas straight women are feminine. Bio-socialisation does not cause sexual preference (Franklin, 1988).
In conclusion boys and girls typically are differently socialised; masculinity or femininity received from segregated hand-me-down cultural belief. Sexism is learned early, prior to religious and racial segregations. However, there is no evidence in the scientific literature that biology or consequent bio-socialisation causes sexual preference. Some say the jury is out, that genetic research will eventually show a bio-genetic causality. Sex, an externalised frame of reference, does not explain sexual preference.
Gender has in general usage the same meaning as sex. As synonyms gender has like sex (erroneously) an external referent into male or female physique. This means that sex and gender research appears similar, one using the term sex and the other preferring gender. If sexual preference is not related to sexual identity (and itâ€™s not) then sexual preference necessarily remains unsolvable mystery. That undifferentiated paradigm creates mess. It is not ipso facto sinful-sex or sexual preference â”€ especially gay â”€ that is disordered. This confused science is itself good example of disorder arising in wrong order.
Gender researchers, unknowingly, use an internal frame of reference. Since male and female terms are used by both sex and gender researchers some confusion should be expected. Also, difficulty arises when gender researchers try to identify the immaterial male or female gender of a personâ€™s psyche. When this internal reference is used unknowingly, as in gender research, a confusion equivalent to mistaking religion and science â”€ and hence different absolute & relative realities â”€ is unwittingly made. Not surprising then that Deaux (1985) identified this research as confused. Gender research is largely devoid of an adequate theoretical framework, one internally coherent and not reflexively externalised. Point of view, whether scientific or religious, is singularly compromised in that absence.
Is this confusion resolvable? Whereas sex researchers can refer objectively to male and female physique, gender researchers seem only to have reference to subjectivity. Put crudely sex researchers have handles whereas gender researchers have immaterial subjectivity. The in vivo question is existential: is sexual preference an operant (see endnote C)Â of gender identity?
Does straight sexual preference arise spontaneously or not? Does gay? Researchers have devised objective tests to measure a personâ€™s psychological gender-identity. There is some correlation evidence that these objective measures of male and female gender predict sexual preference. Additionally, there is no test known to this author prior or since my research project identifying this male or female nature. Naming a test to measure male or female gender by belief (eg, Freund et al, 1974) repeats received wisdom.
A personâ€™s psyche has gender: psychologically male or female, not determined externally. Being male or female without external cause means this innate identity is subjective: true, not counterfeit. Does gender identity of personâ”€metaphysical male or female beingâ”€cause sexual preference?
Boys and girls generally come to identify with and express their gender identity. In boys gender identity develops as male gender-role or female gender-role depending on innate gender identity: similarly in girls. This original role with its internal referent to their male or female soul (ie, Eros or Psyche) is hypothesised to have sexual preference as its operant. In this research:
â€¢ Gender identity was tested as the endogenous origin of sexual preference.
â€¢ A test was devised to nominally define gender identity in participant groups.
Straight men as male bio-anatomical objects are believed to be subjectively male. This a priori catch-22 pervades the literature. This belief is contradicted by transgender experiences and by the general belief that gay-men are sexual inverts and somehow female. In Gender Identity Disorder DSM-IV states (1994, p532) that for trans-sexuality there must be strong evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, of the other sex. A pervasive gender-sex confusion equating sex with gender is evident. DSM-IV presumes the man-male-heterosexual pre-empt. And transgressing this socially-prescribed order is therefore somehow disorder and not human sexual diversity.
While gay men commonly have suffered confusion as boys because of negative sentiment and lingua franca labelling (eg, sissy) they as adults know that they are men. Gay men are not GID as defined in DSM and are not confused by their integrated gender- and sexual-roles.
C. Gender role classifies male or female psyche (Eros or Psyche) in personality. Gay or straight preference â”€ expressing innate gender identity â”€ is felt as knowing being and will. Sexual preference is spontaneous, not sensorial, external or derived: true. Women are mostly assumed to have female gender-role and men to male gender-role. Transgender experiences contradict these. Is homosexuality a contradiction? Are we innately male or female independent of genetic physique and bio-social conditioning?
D. Identification is generally assumed by man-male-heterosexual and woman-female-heterosexual equations, catch-22 pre-empts excluding and segregating homosexuals from a presupposed normal pattern. What is the homosexual pattern? How do gay men and women differ from those one-hat-fits-all normal singularities? Historically in Australian jurisdictions gay identity & identification was mostly denied as criminal. Some, such as Archbishop Pell and the Catholic Church, remain wedded to that pre-empting reductionist worldview including the view that gay is fallen. And thereby institutionalising their causative role and promoting disorder.
2. Order and Disorder
There is an extensive history of anti-gay sentiment and behaviour. There is however no scientific evidence that being gay is of disorder or is caused by disorder. Evidence instead points to confounding in science, religion and community creating confusion and socio-cultural disorder.
These errors create socio-cultural disorder:
ï± Semantic error nominating female identity when male is correct; and vice versa.
ï± Attributing wrong origin to sexual identity by invoking dual homosexual-heterosexual classification based on segregation instead of unified classification based on relation. That dual socially constructed physic-myth masks a delusion of reference to physical body. Two recent extensive reviews (Stein, 1999; Holland, 2004) both attribute the origin of sexual preference to a supposed biological origin. The reification deluding society, creating wrong-order and disorder, is pandemic.
ï± Not distinguishing gender and sex (eg, DSM-IV) confounds internal and external frames of reference, and causing confusion. Two errors of order are evident:
ï‚§ Errors of Omission
Gender and sex like fruit and apple are different higher and lower orders of classification. Not distinguishing instead equates fruit and apple, arbitrarily melding different orders of taxonomic rank like confusing generals and lieutenants. Gay and straight men are very alike: they have positive-identity (relationship) as men. As men they also have negative-identity (relationship) in different subjective genders; and these expressed as different sexual preferences.
ï‚§ Errors of Commission
Fruit and apple, and apple and fruit, are contrary sequential orders. Learned guise, albeit unconscious, can follow habits of wrong sequence such as a gay man from childhood passing unintentionally disguised as though straight. Similarly boys, straight and gay, are bio-socially conditioned to be masculine (segregated from feminine) instead of socialised as manly (eg, collaborative with men & women). Readings highlighting this masculine-feminine segregation can be found in Sex Diaries by Bettina Arndt (2009) and in Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them by Susan Forward & Joan Torres (1986).
Commissioning a failing existence for boys (and girls) induces disorder (eg, original sin). Parents and surrogates such as schools and clubs in loco parentis for unified society induce mania (eg, masculinisation of boys). Societyâ€™s delusional insistence on wrong-order â”€ substituting the singularity of unity (one) for unified whole (oneness) â”€ creates disorder (eg, segregation instead of integration).
3. Different Origins, Same Names, Different Meanings
Freud (1915, footnote p219) in On Sexuality wrote:
It is important to understand clearly that the concepts of masculine and feminine, whose meanings seem so unambiguous to ordinary people are amongst the most confused that occur in science.
This remains true. Preparing my research project I reviewed the literature. It should explain sexual preference. Deaux (1985) in the Annual Review of Psychology did not resolve the confusion nor identify its confound-cause.
Words have a range of meaning. Like masculine and feminine, male and female appear quite simple however each has dual reference: metaphysic (gender) and physic (sex). The puzzling reification causing delusion is not recognised. In this pandemic confusion the enigma that is sexual preference has instead long remained. Conventional science especially psychology has eschewed the subject (psyche) or metaphysic, making inclusive scientific understanding of sexual preference impossible. The tree of knowing has been forsaken for the apple of knowledge: an ancient reductionism institutionalised in religious & scientific division.
Two common beliefs were suspended for my research:
(i) That congruence of gender-sex identity necessarily defines heterosexuality.
(ii) That bio-anatomical (sexual) identity necessarily defines gender of self.
4. Higher and Lower Orders
Gender in modern English language refers to a classification corresponding to male, female and neuter. Nouns, objects such as table, have gender in some languages. Table has no sexual anatomy.
Scientifically, gender refers to being male or female: person’s psychological nature (Franklin, 1988). Male or female gender-identity is subjective because, and unlike sex of body, it has no external referent. Sexual preference, its operant, is objectively its spontaneous expression.
Language changes; colloquially gender nowadays refers not to gender of person but to physique. Nowadays forms asking biographical information ask gender meaning male or female sex. This usage further confounding gender and sex has gained traction since the 1980s probably due to the influential work of sexologist John Money. He equated gender with nurture’s bio-socialisation (Stein, 1999) and not with psycheâ€™s innate nature. This slip-sliding further demonstrates confounding of internal and external frames of reference; subsequent confusion of metaphysic and physic, and further segregation instead of integration of religious (knowing) and scientific (knowledge) realities.
Sex refers to the main divisions into which living things are classified based on male or female sexual anatomy. Sex is a division of gender, just as apple is a division of fruit. When a biographical form asks your sex it is not confounding sex and gender.
Since the 1980s work exploring a possible biological explanation of sexual preference has occurred. Biology, not psychology, is the generally accepted and unproven explanation. That evidence remains absent as recent reviews below by Stein (1999) and Holland (2004) show.
Gender with its subjective referent in male psychological identity and sex with its external referent in male biology both employ the same male term: similarly female. Male has dual reference, metaphysic and physic: as does female. A differentiated instead of segregated classification is required (see Figure 1).
5. Metaphysic and Physic
Gender has metaphysic referent into being a person; psychologically male or female. Integer and metaphysic-whole, person (see endnote D)Â is body-inclusive without mind-body split. Body (see endnote E) has sexual anatomy: also male or female. Our segregated-biology determines much socialisation including how we as young children learn sexism, racism and other delusions of order.
My research hypothesis was that gender determines sexual preference. There was some prior correlation evidence for this causal hypothesis (Bell et al, 1981; Harry, 1983; Hooberman, 1979; Whitam, 1980). However, scientific proof requires demonstration of causal relationship (paper 2) not just correlation.
I now critique two extensive reviews since my doctorate completed in 1988: the review-authors express very different philosophies.
Two Recent Reviews
Stein and Holland agree that sexual preference is confusing and that a biological explanation is wanting. Their attitudes to homosexuality differ markedly. Neither address the scientific-religious confound that puts so-called material reality (physical body) prime to metaphysic (personality). Societyâ€™s confusion of objective & subjective identities and its reversed-order are not addressed.
- Stein, Edward. (1999). The mismeasure of desire: the science, theory, and ethics of sexual orientation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Mismeasure of Desire reflects Steinâ€™s philosopher-background embracing metaphysics. He defines metaphysics as the study of the kinds of things that there are and the forms their existence takes (p5). Metaphysics, I argue, includes heterosexual and homosexual identity and the forms that these take â”€ heterosexuality and homosexuality. If sexual preference has metaphysic-cause then customary science including modern psychology, and anti-gay religions, are counterfeit.
Stein demarcates science and metaphysic stating that science is concerned with the details of the entities that exist and the laws that operate on them (p5). Therefore, if the origin & nature of sexual preference is metaphysical and if sexual preferences both obey the same law then the problematic state of sexual preference is delusional artefact of customary science and reifying psychology. Neither Stein, nor Holland below, recognises in customary science the reification or pre-empting of subjective knowing prior to objective knowledge. This socially created delusion lives on (psychosis) in the role of the closeted gay-man.
He provides an extensive review of empirical research since my research. This includes the emerging scientific program (p120) based in neuroanatomy, heritability and genetic linkage that suggests to many people that sexual orientation requires a genetic or biological explanation (p120). However biological correlates with sexual preference do not demonstrate causality even if we were to accept Steinâ€™s reifying and backwards premise that everything psychological is biologically based (p120). He reiterates the wrong-order hypothesis befuddling people.
An alternative to biological determinism remains the inversion assumption (p202). Attributed to Karl Ulrichs (1825-1895) homosexual men are construed as sexual inverts, that is, female in a male body. Stein states (p202) that this assumption is present, explicitly or implicitly, throughout almost all of the scientific literature from Ulrichs to the present. This inversion assumption â”€ this hand-me-down assumption of gay inversion â”€ is instance of what Stein calls (p348) the tyranny of custom.
Stein accepts the scientific assumption and consequent delusion that our human nature is biologic-based rather than relational. Natural law (see endnote F)Â equates human nature with biology: Stein reiterates that ancient physic-custom. That paradigm espoused and in customary use is counterfeit, even tyrannical. In Western culture this counterfeit reality â”€ and collective psychosis â”€ was personified as Satan; an anthropomorphism (see endnote G).
- Holland, Erik. (2004). The nature of homosexuality: vindication for homosexual activists and the religious right. New York: iUniverse (author).
The Nature of Homosexuality has 709 pages: 230 pages are appendices, glossary, references and index. Nonheterosexuality â”€ his preferred term and implicit fallen-theory â”€ includes 2451 references. This encyclopaedia of empirical evidence is organised to demonstrate by anecdote the customary fallen-thesis. Holland’s background is muscle physiology and disgust.
His prose is idiosyncratic: If a drug is out there, male homosexuals use it (p97). And obtusely related to nonheterosexuality: psychotic individuals tend to have a rounder skull than non-psychotic individuals (p275). Gradually the reader likely realises Holland’s struggle to understand and explain sexual preference using mad-making objectifying scientific method and physic paradigm. Holland turns gay sexual-preference from silk purse to sow’s ear. A truly objective science â”€ a practitioner art of science based on living life â”€ is required (Franklin, 2006).
As a muscle physiologist Holland would be educated in nonsocial science-method dominated by the physic paradigm and (segregating) analysis. Analysis means undo or break-down. That negative effect of analysis when applied to living social situations (psychosis) causes objectification (eg, segregation). Hollandâ€™s analysis reiterates that dissembling order and recapitulating scientific dis-order.
His encyclopaedia of correlates is without cause-effect testing. Nonheterosexuality coins a term, and disguises a premise denying metaphysic-based identity, psychosocial identity formation and unification of identity (integration). Nonheterosexuality demonstrates a closed-system of objectification commonly called a self-fulfilling prophecy: a pre-emptive segregating method creating delusion.
He anticipates 29-itemised criticisms beginning with faulty logic (p348). Thirtieth is his use of Modern scientific philosophy-method. He applies customary analytic-science with its megalomania-making paradigm of wrong-order. Holland shows the counterfeit nature of Modern science. The book-title suggests explanation. Sexual preference remains mystery despite his Herculean efforts.
These two scientists expressing very different attitudes have reviewed the literature. Like Deaux in 1985 they remain confused. Rather, science via psychoanalytic, behaviourist, humanist and social-learning theory has failed to explain sexual preference. Clearly, gay men are not failed men or sexual inverts. So what are they? This, according to Steinâ€™s definition, is a metaphysic question. It requires a metaphysic answer: an answer historically excluded by Newtonian science and its implicit Stoic-philosophy. This tyranny of custom became policy and adopted early in the History of Psychology.
A New Formulation of Sexuality: Conclusion
The ancient formulation as though law of human male-female attraction has no scientific validity. That sexualised opposites-attract formulation as though caused by some sexual ether or gravity reflects an old mechanistic-philosophy of science. Based on objectivised knowledge Sir Isaac Newton built physical-science. History has shown that mechanistic and impersonal reality to be a modern Tower of Babel. The human experience of reality is not entire-built from received wisdom.
Gender Identity (identifying group)
MaleÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Female
Sexual IdentityÂ Â Â Â Â MaleÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Gay menÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Straight men
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â FemaleÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Straight womenÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Gay women
Figure 1: Shows human sexual diversity proposed and tested in empirical research. Person is shown in this 2 x 2 classification with male and female nested in Gender Identity and male and female nested in Sexual Identity.
A relational formulation is shown in Figure 1. Subjectively, our human nature whether male or female is the same as that expressed objectively by the male or female sexual nature of our preferred sexual partner. Relationally, the perceived sexual identity of our preferred sexual partner is the same (Greek, homo) as our own gender identity. This archaic formulation in positive identity (sameness) explains sexual preference as innate and unified; not estranged nor causing estrangement.
The literature is confused. It singularises the duality of ancient (external) and archaic (internal) formulations of reality by reflexively denying the internal. In my project an archaic (or divine) formulation having gender identity as the internal frame of reference was proposed. This psychosocial theory was tested against the ancient (or secular) formulation of Humanism and its illusion-making social determinism.
An internal & external frame of reference, and vice versa, connotes a question of right order. Right order was used to formulate a test to correctly identify nominal gender-identities (see paper 2).
Historically, formulations of homosexuality were binary (0,1) or continuous (0-1). What connects the psychosocial-gap between subjective gender identity and objective sexual identity in person? What is there in reality that analytic method cannot show? What is this existential phenomenon that allows subject (gender) to transform into object (preference) and sustaining that relationship? What is this phenomenon missing from science and integrating absolute & relative in the unified field that is person?
Endnotes (Oxford Dictionary)
Note A reify
convert (a person, abstraction, etc.) mentally into a thing; materialize.
Note B psyche
1 the soul; the spirit.
2 the mind.
[Latin from Greek psukhe â€˜breath, life, soulâ€™]
Note C operant (Free Dictionary)
2. Psychology Of, relating to, or being a response that occurs spontaneously and is identified by its reinforcing or inhibiting effects.
Note D person
an individual human being
Note E body
the living body of a human being
Note F natural law
1 Philos. unchanging moral principles common to all people by virtue of their nature as human beings.
2 a) an observable law relating to natural phenomena. b )these collectively
Note G anthropomorphism
attribution of a human form or personality to a god, animal, or thing.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington , DC: Author.
Arndt, B. (2009). The sex diaries: why women go off sex and other bedroom battles. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Bell, A., Weinberg, M. and Hammersmith, S. (1981). Sexual preferences: Its development in men and women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Carroll, J. (2004). The wreck of western culture: humanism revisited. Melbourne: Scribe.
Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49-81.
Forward, S. and Torres, J. (1986). Men who hate women and the women who love them. New York: Bantam.
Franklin, K. T. (1988). Gender identity in the homosexual male: Identifying and testing two theories of object relations in the personality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Franklin, K. T. (2006, January). Tragic man and existential man in axiodrama: the point of view of the creature. Paper presented at the There is an Oasis Conference of ANZPA Inc, Brisbane.
Franklin, K. T. (2008). Sourcing human madness: psychodrama, sexuality and a new order. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Psychodrama Association Inc, 17, 62-69.
Freud, S. (1915). On sexuality. Middlesex: Penguin.
Fruend, K., Nagler, E., Langevin, R., Zajac, A. and Steiner, B. (1974). Measuring feminine gender identity in homosexual males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3, 249-260.
Harry, J. (1983). Defeminization and adult psychological well-being among male homosexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 1-19.
Holland, E. (2004). The nature of homosexuality: vindication for homosexual activists and the religious right. New York: iUniverse (Author).
Hooberman, R. (1979). Psychological androgyny, feminine gender identity and self-esteem in homosexual and heterosexual males. Journal of Sex Research, 15, 306-315.
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W. and Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Shively, M. and DeCecco, J. (1977). Components of sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 41-48.
Stein, Edward. (1999). The mismeasure of desire: the science, theory, and ethics of sexual orientation. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General Systems Theory. Middlesex: Penguin.
Whitam, F. (1980). The prehomosexual male child in three societies: The United States, Guatemala, Brazil. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 9, 87-99.